Non-combat movement

@nhgrif:

@Caesar:

as for the Japanese, they are not allowed two sea zones within US mainland.

Which exact sea zones are Japan actually allowed/restricted?

Just count two SZ from Alaska, Western US, and Mexico.

The rules say you can ask for German permission to cross through these straights.  Perhaps before you attack, you should simply politely ask the German player if he would please move the nets and mines out of the way so you can sail into his backyard?

Its worth a try someone let the Russian submarine out in one of our games :)

Tell your opponent that land and sea units that participate in combat during the combat phase may not move during the non-combat phase.

Marsh

Yes, it does cost a movement point.

@Spendo02:

Good question then:

When they say adjacent to a japanese controlled territory, they mean actually in the SZ, correct?

Meaning US ships can stop in SZ’s 16, 18, 24, 23 before it is at war?

“Adjacent” means touching, so yes, that means in the seazone that touches a japanese controlled territory.  It does not mean seazone adjacent to the seazone that surrounds or touches a japanese territory.

So yes, 16, 18, 24, 23 are all ok for the US to hang out in.

yes to 1 2 4 and no to 3

Transports and subs never block movement, even when being attacked.

Japan SHOULD be able to go to war against the Soviet Union. That’s the nature of the game. It was also a serious option Japan considered for quite some time. Indeed, in the end they decided to go for the Southern option. It’s difficult to simulate both things in a game of the nature of A&A. One we want mutual attacks to be possible, Two neither of the two countries in question was eager to fight the other while already at war with Germany/Italy or the US/UK/France respectively…

Perhaps a negative NO would work or an IPC penalty (in the rulebook it’s explained that NOs represent a boost in morale and vigour (I suppose both in the military and as far as civilians/factory workers etc. are concerned). Hearing that your country is being attacked from both sides would probably have the opposite effect of an NO, so a negative one might work: -6 IPC if Japan is at war with the Western Allies and the USSR simultaneously and -6 if the USSR is at war with both Japan and Germany/ Italy. These negative SA’s only apply when you initiated the conflict with the Soviet Union or japan respectively. ( I agree the wording needs to be worked on, but I’m sure you get the idea). I’m certainly not for completely disallowing the possibility!